Ageing squad

[billycopper]

I wish I hadn't said I'm done because I knew as soon as I typed it I'd not have the willpower to keep quiet.

Anyway, first of all if you interpret me saying something doesn't make sense or is naive as a personal insult that's your doing. I'd argue there's a difference between saying "you're stupid" and "that's stupid". One is about the person, the other is about their specific opinion. Some of your opinions I think are naive, or even outright stupid, but I don't think you are. Evidently you are not. But saying you need to speak slowly so I understand you is nothing but an insult to me. I think it's a bit desperate and a bit petulant.

Anyway, I'd say you seem to ignore most of my points and often twist my words into new, contrived opinions. But I'll be very clear and hopefully conclusive here.

First of all I am saying Saha is, with our current crop of players, more effective without Cahill. You're saying I've not put anything forward to change your mind on that note, and that's a lie. He went for 11 months without scoring, and we were playing 4-4-1-1 with Cahill behind him during that time. Last season, the very first game he played without Cahill and the very first game we started with a 4-4-2 was the game he broke his 11 month goal duck. If that doesn't go some way to changing your mind then you're obviously making a concerted effort to be stubborn.

As for your second paragraph, you're saying I don't want Cahill in midfield full stop. This is you again warping my words because I have repeatedly said there is a time and place for all formations. I said earlier against Chelsea a 4-4-1-1 with Cahill is a sensible choice, but my problem is that we play like that against teams like Wolves too.

Neville-wise I have acknowledged your points and have admitted he's very good at carrying out a defensive role. He did well there. However he is a limited footballer and having 2 defensive players in the center of midfield is too negative when we don't have any threat on the right hand side. Do you disagree with this? Can you disagree with this?

Finally, I'd like to highlight your absolutely perfect use of stats. By that I mean you use them to support your argument, and when they're not favourable to your point you completely ignore them. Case in point:



Yes those stats were favourable to Neville. I don't see you mentioning the ones EB put up the other day that say with Ossie we have our highest win with percentage and lowest win without percentage, but with Cahill we have our lowest win with percentage and highest win without percentage. This just confirms what I already know, and I think deep down you already know too; stats can be cherry-picked and have retroactive meaning applied to make them support anything.

Your last line is a nice touch though, I'll give you that. I don't think you are open to having your mind changed in the slightest, because I've never seen you once accept you might be anything other than 100% right. So either every single person who's ever debated with you on here is completely wrong, or you are actually just someone who thinks they're always right.

Ok, so you think some of the things I say are naive or stupid. What else can I take from that apart from that you think I don't understand the game? My views might be contrary to popular opinion, but I don't just spout stuff off the top of my head without being able to back it up. I can't conclusively prove any of my theories, but you can't definitively disprove them either. Statistics are there to be interpretted.

If it was as simple to get Saha scoring as replacing Cahill with Beckford, why didn't they score more goals together? In the games where they played a large portion of the game together the scorers were Cahill (West Brom), Saha and Coleman (Spurs), Saha 4 and Beckford (Blackpool), Beckford 2 (Sunderland), No scorer (Reading), Heitinga (Birmingham). Against Blackpool Louis had already scored 2 goal before Beckford came on. So, while they played together they each scored 3 goals in 6 games. That's pretty good. But Saha also scored against Arsenal, Chelsea and Fulham without Beckford. How much of it can be down to him needing a strike partner then?

If I'm interpretting you correctly, Cahill is alright for the big games, where we need to pack the midfield. Last season Tim scored decisive goals against Wolves (D1-1), Birmingham (W2-0), Blackpool (D2-2), Sunderland (D2-2) and West Brom (L1-4) as well as United, Liverpool, Arsenal and City. Against Blackpool and Sunderland we ended the match with two strikers, but couldn't find a winning goal. To me, it shows the importance of Cahill throughout the campaign.

With regards to Neville, we could have Barkley, Osman, Coleman, Barton, Donovan or whoever you like on the right hand side because we'd be covered when they went forward. Watching the last two friendlies, we've stuck 10 men behind the ball and still conceded. I don't want that. I want us to have the security to go forward and play attacking fooball without being cut to ribbons by a simple counter.

I commented on EB's stats. I know that I'm not 100% right. If I concede ground and you don't, then you'll be claiming you've won. I can't be having that now.

 

[RFUS]

This is just beyond boring now. Alas I've got nothing better to do... so...

Ok, so you think some of the things I say are naive or stupid. What else can I take from that apart from that you think I don't understand the game? My views might be contrary to popular opinion, but I don't just spout stuff off the top of my head without being able to back it up. I can't conclusively prove any of my theories, but you can't definitively disprove them either. Statistics are there to be interpretted.

That's just nonsense. Every single person knowledgeable about football will have numerous bad opinions. Moyes is a professional manager on £65K a week and he makes bad decisions every season. Some might say every week. I think you're knowledgeable about football, but some of your opinions I find to be highly disagreeable.

If it was as simple to get Saha scoring as replacing Cahill with Beckford, why didn't they score more goals together? In the games where they played a large portion of the game together the scorers were Cahill (West Brom), Saha and Coleman (Spurs), Saha 4 and Beckford (Blackpool), Beckford 2 (Sunderland), No scorer (Reading), Heitinga (Birmingham). Against Blackpool Louis had already scored 2 goal before Beckford came on. So, while they played together they each scored 3 goals in 6 games. That's pretty good. But Saha also scored against Arsenal, Chelsea and Fulham without Beckford. How much of it can be down to him needing a strike partner then?

Why didn't they score more together?! You've just said they scored 3 goals each in 6 games. Not even full games. Mostly bits of games. Ridiculous.

And I did not say Saha needs a strike partner. I said I think he's better with a strike partner. Not any strike partner, but with someone like Becks who can open up space for him, he really can come to life. I wouldn't advocate the 4-2-3-1 if I thought Saha couldn't do the lone striker role.

If I'm interpretting you correctly, Cahill is alright for the big games, where we need to pack the midfield. Last season Tim scored decisive goals against Wolves (D1-1), Birmingham (W2-0), Blackpool (D2-2), Sunderland (D2-2) and West Brom (L1-4) as well as United, Liverpool, Arsenal and City. Against Blackpool and Sunderland we ended the match with two strikers, but couldn't find a winning goal. To me, it shows the importance of Cahill throughout the campaign.

Wait, did you just call scoring a goal in our 4-1 defeat a decisive goal? Interesting.

Anyway, I worked out his stats before and in games he scored, we won 3, drew 4 and lost 2. What that says to me is that yes Cahill can score, I have never doubted his goalscoring ability, but scoring is one thing. Winning is another. With him in the middle of a side in a 4-4-1-1 the rest of our play suffers. This is one of those moments where I'm going to use your favourite word: naive. It's naive to think that because Cahill is a good player that having him in the team makes us a good team. Or that because he can score goals having him in the team makes us a goalscoring team. He may have scored some important goals but he also scored some meaningless ones in defeats. And he also registered blanks in plentyWins are what matter, and with him in the side (in a 4-4-1-1) we do not look like a winning team. EB's stats back that claim up completely.

With regards to Neville, we could have Barkley, Osman, Coleman, Barton, Donovan or whoever you like on the right hand side because we'd be covered when they went forward. Watching the last two friendlies, we've stuck 10 men behind the ball and still conceded. I don't want that. I want us to have the security to go forward and play attacking fooball without being cut to ribbons by a simple counter.

You've convinced me of Neville's merit in the center, but factoring in age and other talents, I'd always have Felli there instead. But you'd be content with both in the center. I'm going to echo Toccy's point from another thread on that -- Felli and Nev don't have a good range of passing, and you need someone in the center to link midfield and attack with a bit of guile. This is why I'd like someone like Arteta, Ossie or (wishful thinking alert) Barton to partner Fell.

I commented on EB's stats. I know that I'm not 100% right. If I concede ground and you don't, then you'll be claiming you've won. I can't be having that now.

Whilst we're both obviously argumentative, you won't accept a single point I try to make. You act like everything I say is wrong, or if you do agree, then you just don't mention it. I on the other hand will always admit when someone's made a good point. You can call me out on that if you don't believe me, because I will probably be sad enough to excavate the vaults for plenty of proof. I am hoping you save me the hassle though!

I sense that to me this is a debate and to you this is an argument. You want to 'win' whereas I just want to bounce ideas and opinions off other people to try and come to a more rounded conclusion and better my own understanding of the game. If I'm right then ffs lad just ask me outside already and we can kick the crap out of each other and be done with it.

 

[Allezfan]

Just kiss each other already lads. The sexual tension is bejond a joke, now.

 

[RFUS]

Just kiss each other already lads. The sexual tension is bejond a joke, now.

Hey that's my line ffs lad.

Threeway?

 

[chicoazul]

Just kiss each other already lads. The sexual tension is bejond a joke, now.

You're just wanting free porn ffs.

 

[BigBlueConk]

I have heard you can get porn on the internet these days.

 

[chicoazul]

I have heard you can get porn on the internet these days.

Dude, do you have any photos or videos of your ex? If so then get them on the Upgraded Forum. It makes sense.

 

[billycopper]

This is just beyond boring now. Alas I've got nothing better to do... so...

That's just nonsense. Every single person knowledgeable about football will have numerous bad opinions. Moyes is a professional manager on £65K a week and he makes bad decisions every season. Some might say every week. I think you're knowledgeable about football, but some of your opinions I find to be highly disagreeable.

Why didn't they score more together?! You've just said they scored 3 goals each in 6 games. Not even full games. Mostly bits of games. Ridiculous.

And I did not say Saha needs a strike partner. I said I think he's better with a strike partner. Not any strike partner, but with someone like Becks who can open up space for him, he really can come to life. I wouldn't advocate the 4-2-3-1 if I thought Saha couldn't do the lone striker role.

Wait, did you just call scoring a goal in our 4-1 defeat a decisive goal? Interesting.

Anyway, I worked out his stats before and in games he scored, we won 3, drew 4 and lost 2. What that says to me is that yes Cahill can score, I have never doubted his goalscoring ability, but scoring is one thing. Winning is another. With him in the middle of a side in a 4-4-1-1 the rest of our play suffers. This is one of those moments where I'm going to use your favourite word: naive. It's naive to think that because Cahill is a good player that having him in the team makes us a good team. Or that because he can score goals having him in the team makes us a goalscoring team. He may have scored some important goals but he also scored some meaningless ones in defeats. And he also registered blanks in plentyWins are what matter, and with him in the side (in a 4-4-1-1) we do not look like a winning team. EB's stats back that claim up completely.

You've convinced me of Neville's merit in the center, but factoring in age and other talents, I'd always have Felli there instead. But you'd be content with both in the center. I'm going to echo Toccy's point from another thread on that -- Felli and Nev don't have a good range of passing, and you need someone in the center to link midfield and attack with a bit of guile. This is why I'd like someone like Arteta, Ossie or (wishful thinking alert) Barton to partner Fell.

Whilst we're both obviously argumentative, you won't accept a single point I try to make. You act like everything I say is wrong, or if you do agree, then you just don't mention it. I on the other hand will always admit when someone's made a good point. You can call me out on that if you don't believe me, because I will probably be sad enough to excavate the vaults for plenty of proof. I am hoping you save me the hassle though!

I sense that to me this is a debate and to you this is an argument. You want to 'win' whereas I just want to bounce ideas and opinions off other people to try and come to a more rounded conclusion and better my own understanding of the game. If I'm right then ffs lad just ask me outside already and we can kick the crap out of each other and be done with it.

The games I picked out were where they played a significant amount of the game together, rather than the last 15 minutes. If I'd included all the games it wouldn't have helped your point but it would have been too easy for you to say that they didn't get enough time together. If 4-4-2 is so much better than 4-4-1-1 then there should be some way that we can measure it. Saha scored as many as the lone striker (and against harder opposition) as with Beckford. If two strikers are better we'd expect one or both of them to score more, right?

I knew you'd pick up on the West Brom thing. Is that all you've got? They were goals that he scored against 'lesser' opposition. Generally speaking, they were decisive. He scored to make it 2-1 in that game, which would have given us a foothold for a comeback, if we hadn't capitulated.

What you said about us not winning games in which is scored is utter horse****. He's playing behind the striker. How can he be held responsible for us conceding goals? Cahill went to Qatar in January for a month and had a patchy appearance record until the end of the season, as he wasn't fully fit. Neville stepped into midfield in March. In the meantime we lost from a winning position against Arsenal, put in an abject performance against Bolton, predeemed ourselves with wins against Sunderland and Newcastle before claiming a draw against Brum. Cahill didn't score again (because he shouldn't have been playing), but our goals against reduced by 77% because Neville was protected the defence. Could that be one reason why our win record improved so much?

I'm astounded that you say you're open to new ideas and that I bullishly stick to my guns. From my point of view, it's the other way round. That's the first time you've said that there could be any merit to having Neville in midfield. I'm not asking for you to agree with me, just to accept that there could be something to it. I've said in this thread and others that I agree with some of your points. I think we should play with two strikers, that Fellaini should be one of the first names on the teamsheet, that Cahill should sometimes be rotated and that we need to make room for Ossie are just a few of the examples.

I like to try and notice things that other people might have missed or to come up with new ideas. I know that they often go against the status quo and that's why I try to justify them with stats. Football is subjective, so there's no such thing as right or wrong. If someone says that I'm naive, nonsensical, piss poor or whatever else then it makes me want to show them up. You're no more of an authority on football than I am and your views are no more valid than mine. It's fair enough if you disagree with what I have to say, but be prepared to get your ass kicked (verbally) if you try to belittle me.

 

[chicoazul]

 

[Zatara]

I mention 13 year old girls and the thread turns on its head

Lets hope we win against spurs so we can finally start being positive about the season.....

 

[BigBlueConk]

I mention 13 year old girls and the thread turns on its head

Lets hope we win against spurs so we can finally start being positive about the season.....

Well every male poster on here is actually 12 years old and it becomes sort of like Christmas!

 

[BigBlueConk]

Dude, do you have any photos or videos of your ex? If so then get them on the Upgraded Forum. It makes sense.

It's odd you mention that. I deleted anything interesting a couple of months ago when I thought she was first leaving!
Technically speaking, the whole squad is ageing at the rate of 60 seconds per minute, trying to stay on topic.